Open DiscussionDiscuss Tech pioneers tell FCC: 'You don't understand how the internet works' at the General Forum; Originally Posted by GottaGo
I'll get the solid stats, but yes, net neutrality prevents the companies that built the equipment ...

I'll get the solid stats, but yes, net neutrality prevents the companies that built the equipment from charging the services such NetFlix for the extra 'bandwidth' they use for the high speed transmission required for such downloads. My spouse has worked in this industry for over 30 years...

How do you think companies like NetFlix can charge $10 per movie? Because they are not paying for what they use -

there is no "extra bandwidth"
it comes into your home one size fits all unless they slow it down.
they can have two or several "plans" as they call them, but after you buy into a monthly plan, they should not then slow down netflix or anyone else to get an additional fe.
but that is what they are gonna do.
so you're screwed.

Absolutely untrue. Net Neutrality didn't lift data caps nor did give bureaucrats authority to set prices. All it did was keep the internet as it was, as free and as innovative as it was, a pushback against data throttling and extortion from ISPs to web services.

Deploying the dishonest tactic of editing my comment then responding to the truncated text is not persuasive.

It is ironic to claim extending control by Federal bureaucrats with new regulations aimed at fixing a prospective problem, one that only exists in speculation, is necessary for freedom and innovation. There is so much evidence of just the opposite occurring.

Giving the Federal unelected bureaucrats the authority to enforce so-called neutrality defined by regulatory fiat is a receipt for stifling innovation on the Internet. If a fast lane is available for optimized Netflix streaming why shouldn't it cost more? Why should everyone else have to pay for fast lane access even nonsubscribers or government regulation make the fast lane connection forbidden? That is the opposite of freedom and innovation.

As I pointed out in my comment text you deleted, net neutrality is bureaucratic regulation in search of a problem.

__________________
The Democrat's strategy for the Trump Presidency is the same one used by Stalin's secret police chief "show me the man and I will show you the crime."

Lets imagine you move into a new apartment building. Big one 150 apartments. They tell you that they are all already wired for internet and the price is 20 dollars a month and you get gigabit service. Which is GREAT because no other network service is available there.

So one day company XYZ comes to your landlord and says. Hey if you tell us all the websites your tenants are going to so we can mail them targeted ads we'll give you a dollar per tenant you report on. So the landlord thinks this is a good idea and he logs into his routers and puts the report together for company XYZ and sends it to them. As he's looking through his logs he finds that 70 percent of the traffic on the apartment building network is Netflix. So he sends netflix a letter demanding for each person on the buildings network that access Netflix they pay him 1 dollar a month or he will slow down all traffic from Netflix. Because Netflix is unfairly using his network and not paying for it. Of course he doesn't tell his tenants/customers he's doing this.

Netflix of course doesn't pay him, and so he slows down all traffic from Netflix and the customer gets screwed.

But now lets say those people in that apartment building represent 1/3 of Netflix customers? Well of course it's only right that Netflix should have to pay right? I mean they are UNFAIRLY using his network. Forget the fact that the customers are already paying 20 a month for network access and he could easily raise the price to 21 dollars a month if he WANTED to well except for the contractual agreements he has in place with them. But you know for new customers he could.

Remember you live there? How do you feel about all this?

Wow, that's quite an imagination. Conveniently ignored is the army of Federal internet cops required with full access to everyone's browsing history to protect us against this imaginary problem. Thanks for illustrating how net neutrality regulations would mushroom from cracking down on those unfair ISP to every router in the land.

And of course Netflix would go along with this secret extortion by the landlord. Yeah sure.

__________________
The Democrat's strategy for the Trump Presidency is the same one used by Stalin's secret police chief "show me the man and I will show you the crime."

Lets imagine you move into a new apartment building. Big one 150 apartments. They tell you that they are all already wired for internet and the price is 20 dollars a month and you get gigabit service. Which is GREAT because no other network service is available there.

So one day company XYZ comes to your landlord and says. Hey if you tell us all the websites your tenants are going to so we can mail them targeted ads we'll give you a dollar per tenant you report on. So the landlord thinks this is a good idea and he logs into his routers and puts the report together for company XYZ and sends it to them. As he's looking through his logs he finds that 70 percent of the traffic on the apartment building network is Netflix. So he sends netflix a letter demanding for each person on the buildings network that access Netflix they pay him 1 dollar a month or he will slow down all traffic from Netflix. Because Netflix is unfairly using his network and not paying for it. Of course he doesn't tell his tenants/customers he's doing this.

Netflix of course doesn't pay him, and so he slows down all traffic from Netflix and the customer gets screwed.

But now lets say those people in that apartment building represent 1/3 of Netflix customers? Well of course it's only right that Netflix should have to pay right? I mean they are UNFAIRLY using his network. Forget the fact that the customers are already paying 20 a month for network access and he could easily raise the price to 21 dollars a month if he WANTED to well except for the contractual agreements he has in place with them. But you know for new customers he could.

Remember you live there? How do you feel about all this?

It's called bottlenecking.... more and more services that use higher and higher amounts of bandwidth (the equipment that exists to carry the transmission), and since each customer is paying for X bandwidth, they expect to get what they pay for. No issue with that. Now, get everybody in your theoretical building all using the the same streaming type service that uses the extensive bandwidth AT THE SAME TIME. The equipment, at some point, tops out. In order to continue to provide the customer with the speed they pay for, the equipment has to be upgraded. Who pays for that?

Under NN, not the customer, and not the high usage service - the owner of the equipment (usually cable companies, and some other utilities are progressing with capabilities to transmit). Millions of dollars to upgrade, and services like NetFlix and Amazon, under NN, do NOT pay.

Think of it like this...

You have a 4" main water line pipe connected to thousands of homes. While everyone grabs a glass of water every now and then, everything is fine. Now imagine everyone flushes the toilet at the same time during half time of the Super Bowl. Who pays for the larger water main?

__________________Your life is the sum total of the choices you make.If you can't laugh at yourself, you might as well get embalmed

there is no "extra bandwidth"
it comes into your home one size fits all unless they slow it down.
they can have two or several "plans" as they call them, but after you buy into a monthly plan, they should not then slow down netflix or anyone else to get an additional fe.
but that is what they are gonna do.
so you're screwed.

PS be sure to read Zenock's post.

Your understanding of the internet, and bandwidth usage, is so sorely lacking I couldn't begin to try and explain to you what is wrong with your statement.

I have repeatedly stated that the problem is not based on the consumer's side it is based on the services used side. Obviously, that is beyond your comprehension, so just read my response to Zenock....

__________________Your life is the sum total of the choices you make.If you can't laugh at yourself, you might as well get embalmed

I'll get the solid stats, but yes, net neutrality prevents the companies that built the equipment from charging the services such NetFlix for the extra 'bandwidth' they use for the high speed transmission required for such downloads. My spouse has worked in this industry for over 30 years...

That's not what I asked you.

I asked you to "... show any effect from this supposed "missing" maintenance money"
You are making up a false problem with the complaint of needing to charge NetFlix.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GottaGo

How do you think companies like NetFlix can charge $10 per movie? Because they are not paying for what they use -

THE CONSUMERS ARE PAYING THAT BILL.

Your mentality is like demanding BOTH the shipping company and the consumer pay fees for shipping. That's not how any of that works.

And worse, the cost will only get past onto the consumer anyways.
And it will not show up in any improvement to the service provided. It'll show up in a bonus to the exec pockets.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

Deploying the dishonest tactic of editing my comment then responding to the truncated text is not persuasive.

As I have pointed out multiple times in the past you do this too.
When you quote an article, you don't quote the whole thing.
The intent is NOT dishonesty. You show absolutely no rational deceit involved when this occurs. Many posters on the board do it to quote exactly and exclusively what they want to respond to.
But you are dishonest in claiming it is a "dishonest tactic".

Quote:

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

It is ironic to claim extending control by Federal bureaucrats with new regulations aimed at fixing a prospective problem, one that only exists in speculation, is necessary for freedom and innovation. There is so much evidence of just the opposite occurring.

You have presented absolutely no evidence of "the opposite occurring" regarding net neutrality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

Giving the Federal unelected bureaucrats the authority to enforce so-called neutrality defined by regulatory fiat is a receipt for stifling innovation on the Internet.

HOW???
There is no logic to this claim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

If a fast lane is available for optimized Netflix streaming why shouldn't it cost more?

First off, the very assumption you make in your question violates net neutrality.
No "fast lanes" are to be established for Netflix or any other internet site. That is a violation of net neutrality.
Proving you don't comprehend what you rail against.

Secondly, consumers can already pay more for higher speeds for all their internet sites.IT IS THE CONSUMER WHO ALREADY MAKES THAT CHOICE AND FOOTS THAT BILL. So there is no rational reason to charge Netflix.

Finally, you started this paragraph talking about stifling innovation.
Yet your follow-on sentences give absolutely no justification for that claim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

Why should everyone else have to pay for fast lane access even nonsubscribers or government regulation make the fast lane connection forbidden? That is the opposite of freedom and innovation.

WTF are you even saying here?
NONE of what you say has anything to do with Net Neutrality.
"make the fast lane connection forbidden"???
NO SITE GETS A FAST LANE CONNECTION under net neutrality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

As I pointed out in my comment text you deleted, net neutrality is bureaucratic regulation in search of a problem.

It's called bottlenecking.... more and more services that use higher and higher amounts of bandwidth (the equipment that exists to carry the transmission), and since each customer is paying for X bandwidth, they expect to get what they pay for. No issue with that. Now, get everybody in your theoretical building all using the the same streaming type service that uses the extensive bandwidth AT THE SAME TIME. The equipment, at some point, tops out. In order to continue to provide the customer with the speed they pay for, the equipment has to be upgraded. Who pays for that?

Under NN, not the customer ...

WHY NOT the consumers?

WHO has been paying for internet service improvements over the last few decades?
Hint: CONSUMERS.

__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

I asked you to "... show any effect from this supposed "missing" maintenance money"
You are making up a false problem with the complaint of needing to charge NetFlix.

THE CONSUMERS ARE PAYING THAT BILL.

Your mentality is like demanding BOTH the shipping company and the consumer pay fees for shipping. That's not how any of that works.

And worse, the cost will only get past onto the consumer anyways.
And it will not show up in any improvement to the service provided. It'll show up in a bonus to the exec pockets.

As I have pointed out multiple times in the past you do this too.
When you quote an article, you don't quote the whole thing.
The intent is NOT dishonesty. You show absolutely no rational deceit involved when this occurs. Many posters on the board do it to quote exactly and exclusively what they want to respond to.
But you are dishonest in claiming it is a "dishonest tactic".

You have presented absolutely no evidence of "the opposite occurring" regarding net neutrality.

HOW???
There is no logic to this claim.

First off, the very assumption you make in your question violates net neutrality.
No "fast lanes" are to be established for Netflix or any other internet site. That is a violation of net neutrality.
Proving you don't comprehend what you rail against.

Secondly, consumers can already pay more for higher speeds for all their internet sites.IT IS THE CONSUMER WHO ALREADY MAKES THAT CHOICE AND FOOTS THAT BILL. So there is no rational reason to charge Netflix.

Finally, you started this paragraph talking about stifling innovation.
Yet your follow-on sentences give absolutely no justification for that claim.

WTF are you even saying here?
NONE of what you say has anything to do with Net Neutrality.
"make the fast lane connection forbidden"???
NO SITE GETS A FAST LANE CONNECTION under net neutrality.

WHO has been paying for internet service improvements over the last few decades?
Hint: CONSUMERS.

And you still don't understand it, do you? The consumer doesn't pay anything even vaguely close to the costs of those improvements. A consumer is quite often locked in at X price for a period of time, and discover those streaming services, cancels or doesn't renew their cable access to movies and shows, they go with the streaming, which uses the cable company's equipment, but the cable company doesn't get the additional revenue for the upgrades from the service transmitting.....

__________________Your life is the sum total of the choices you make.If you can't laugh at yourself, you might as well get embalmed

And you still don't understand it, do you? The consumer doesn't pay anything even vaguely close to the costs of those improvements.

Still waiting on any evidence / data to substantiate your claims...
The biggest hole in your claim is simply this:

The internet has existed for decades

ISPs have never charged web-sites for speed.

Given the two above, how has the internet survived not only increases in speed but expansion in service while never charging it to the web-sites?

You need to stop regurgitating somebody else's half-baked propaganda and think about this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GottaGo

A consumer is quite often locked in at X price for a period of time, and discover those streaming services, cancels or doesn't renew their cable access to movies and shows, they go with the streaming, which uses the cable company's equipment, but the cable company doesn't get the additional revenue for the upgrades from the service transmitting.....

A major new study from the Federal Communications Commission has found that basic cable prices increased by 6.5% throughout 2012 while expanded basic cable prices rose by 5.1% over the same period. In contrast, the general rate of inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index throughout 2012 was just 1.6%, meaning that basic cable prices rose at more than four times the rate of inflation in 2012 while expanded basic cable prices rose by more than three times the rate of inflation.

For an Internet connection of 25 megabits per second, New Yorkers pay about $55 — nearly double that of what residents in London, Seoul, and Bucharest, Romania, pay. And residents in cities such as Hong Kong, Seoul, Tokyo and Paris get connections nearly eight times faster.

Here’s how cities across the world compare when it comes to Internet price and speed:

So why are Americans paying more for slower service? The answer: There’s limited competition in the broadband market.

In fact, half of American homes have only two options for Internet service providers for basic broadband, according to the Federal Communications Commission. And for faster speeds, a majority of households have only one choice.

There may be short term sweet-heart deals for signing up, but those go away and the consumers pay far more down the road.

Still waiting on you to "... show any effect from this supposed "missing" maintenance money"
Throughout this thread, you have been big on claims and short on any semblance of proof.

__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

A major new study from the Federal Communications Commission has found that basic cable prices increased by 6.5% throughout 2012 while expanded basic cable prices rose by 5.1% over the same period. In contrast, the general rate of inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index throughout 2012 was just 1.6%, meaning that basic cable prices rose at more than four times the rate of inflation in 2012 while expanded basic cable prices rose by more than three times the rate of inflation.

For an Internet connection of 25 megabits per second, New Yorkers pay about $55 — nearly double that of what residents in London, Seoul, and Bucharest, Romania, pay. And residents in cities such as Hong Kong, Seoul, Tokyo and Paris get connections nearly eight times faster.

Here’s how cities across the world compare when it comes to Internet price and speed:

So why are Americans paying more for slower service? The answer: There’s limited competition in the broadband market.

In fact, half of American homes have only two options for Internet service providers for basic broadband, according to the Federal Communications Commission. And for faster speeds, a majority of households have only one choice.

There may be short term sweet-heart deals for signing up, but those go away and the consumers pay far more down the road.

Still waiting on you to "... show any effect from this supposed "missing" maintenance money"
Throughout this thread, you have been big on claims and short on any semblance of proof.

Streaming content has not existed for decades.

Look at how many small cable companies no longer exist, or were eaten up by the big boys. Perhaps you should be more concerned with that, then attempting to drag me down one of your absurd rabbit holes.

You can wait until you're blue in the face for 'proof' of the costs of building and upgrading equipment, but capital expenditures can give even the most basic math minded person an idea. This data is projected from 2008 for a 7 year picture.https://www.statista.com/statistics/...rs-since-2008/

__________________Your life is the sum total of the choices you make.If you can't laugh at yourself, you might as well get embalmed